The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

coordinator, they did not have the time to go. Consequently they have no knowledge of what theprogramme provides for gifted and talented students.Curriculum issues. Two schools felt that the heavy demands of a crowded curriculum were a barrierto providing for gifted and talented students. One school said that they needed the courage to state thatparticular students do not need to do everything in every curriculum area. Another school initially helda fear that because of all the areas needing to be taught, there would be no space in the school week todevote time to enrichment programmes. To overcome this, teachers selected topics within eachcurriculum area that they were willing to give up teaching themselves. For example, in themathematics curriculum, a couple of geometry objectives were identified and the teacher responsiblefor mathematics enrichment taught and assessed those objectives to every class in the school. In thisway a balance and coverage of curriculum activities was achieved without being viewed as ‘extra’curriculum activities.NCEA was identified as a major barrier for gifted and talented students by both of the secondary casestudy schools, and these teachers were particularly concerned about the level of challenge anddisadvantages of the assessment. These teachers felt that other schools shared their same view ofNCEA and gifted students. In particular, Technology was emphasised as a curriculum area wheregifted and talented students were being disadvantaged by the NCEA system. Teachers in one of theschools felt the only way they could motivate bright students “at the top end” was to put them incompetitions and provide a reason for putting in effort, such as design or architecture school onlyaccepting the top two percent of applicants. In this school some departments were exploring the ideaof offering alternative examinations, such as Cambridge, for their gifted and talented students.Teachers expressed concerns about the level of challenge and motivation, as described here:At this school we identify the able kids and we offer them six subjects at obviously Year 11and we promote Year 10s to do the 5th Form or the old School cert or Level 1 and that’sgood. But I do wonder in NCEA. We used to have Scholarship, Bursary Scholarship, andwe used to be able to take those real top kids and really extend them out and that’s going todisappear I feel with NCEA.... In Level 1 they’ve still got that enthusiasm and they’rescoring excellences, get to Level 2 and suddenly now they’re just achievement. They do notand I can’t push them to go to that next level. The only way I can get them to go to the nextlevel is to get them doing competitions. A few will do it but they’ve got the system workedout.The current focus for the committee of the second school is to determine the impact of NCEA on theschool’s gifted senior students. Prior to NCEA these students were able to be kept together as a groupthat did accelerated courses, for example, attending university classes.One of the major concerns with NCEA is that bright students can get 92% in a mathematics exam butget Not Achieved because they skipped a step in their calculations. This is difficult for gifted studentsto comprehend. Parents too are concerned, for example:I had an interview with some parents last week whose kid is in the top Year 10 class and hegot an Excellence in his first attempt at NCEA Science, then he got a Merit, and then anAchieved in the recent exams. He got the Achieved because of one particular question thathe didn’t answer but his parents are up here saying what can we do because they expecthim to get Excellence. A lot of that sort of thing is going on.This school has opted to offer university papers; however, there are practical implications involved,for example, finding mentors and places around the school for students to study.Provision issues. All of the case study schools raised issues around the best way to make provisionsfor gifted and talented students. This revolved around the age at which provisions should be made, therelationship between special programmes and the regular classroom programme, transitions between264
levels of schooling, and overall organisation and coordination. For example, one full primary schoolinitially provided a gifted programme for their 8-13 year olds, but the team debated how they wouldidentify, and then justify, that the older students need more than the students in the junior end of theschool. They overcame these ethical dilemmas by referring back to their common beliefs andphilosophy about provisions for gifted education within their school.Three schools queried whether gaps in learning were occurring when students were in specialprogrammes which withdrew them from the regular classroom. For example, when the students go to aspecial mathematics programme at the same time mathematics is taught in their classroom, it ispossible that between the two programmes some children may miss being taught a specific conceptthat they need to know. One primary school hoped that these gaps would be picked up duringassessments.Related to this was some discussion regarding the relationship between enrichment and acceleration.Teachers expressed concerns about “sending kids up without going across.” The relationship andtiming of out-of-class programmes in relation to classroom programmes was also considered to bepotentially problematic. One school reported the lack of fit between the gifted programme and theregular class programme. For example, the workshop topic may be something that is not at all relatedto what is happening in a student’s class. However, the school does not think that this should be usedas an excuse for not making special provisions.From a gifted coordinator’s perspective, there can be barriers with in-class provisions. In other wordswhile the students are involved in gifted and talented programmes outside their regular classroom,there also needs to be more emphasis on in-class extension and enrichment. As one coordinator said:It simply isn’t enough to expect that those children will be extended by the withdrawalgroups. There’s more children than what I can cater for and, you know, all our brightchildren from middle upwards need constant extending and it might be that I have to domore in the way, you know, I suppose teaching about differentiated learning from both endsof the scale.One school expressed some reservations about their provisions in relation to the local cluster groupprogrammes, the Correspondence School programme, and the school-based individualised Christianbasedprogramme. In particular, the individualised system can create an expectation that there isalways a right and wrong answer because of the marking cards. The instance was cited of somechildren finding a teacher-prepared science unit quite difficult at first because the concepts had noright or wrong answers. “They wanted to know straight out – what’s the right answer.” Occasionally agifted child will get frustrated with the fact that the system is so structured. For some gifted childrenthe programme can confine them:because of the sameness, there’s a sameness on a day to day basis… its not about theinformation, its about “I am ready to try something different, yeah, I’ve read this, Iunderstand it and you’re still going to make me write those things down.Some schools also expressed concerns about the administrative aspects of making provisions for giftedand talented students. With the transition to secondary school, contributing teachers at the intermediateschool felt that the information they provided was not taken into account. The perception was that theconcept of giftedness at some of the local secondary schools is narrowly based on academicperformance, so that some students who have been involved in a specialised programme for gifted andtalented students end up treading water when they get to secondary school. Anger was directed at theirlocal secondary schools for not including some students in the gifted or accelerate programmes inYear 9.What’s the point of us having gathered all this data, passed it on to you and then talked to youabout children in our classes if you didn’t take any notice of us, so it is an issue.265
Page 1 and 2:
The Extent, Nature and Effectivenes
Page 3 and 4:
iii
Page 6 and 7:
AcknowledgementsThe research team w
Page 8 and 9:
viii
Page 10 and 11:
The Nature and Extent of Identifica
Page 12 and 13:
Table 28. School-Based Provisions:
Page 14 and 15:
policy (Ministry of Education, 2002
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction to the Literature Revi
Page 19 and 20:
national and international theory a
Page 21 and 22:
literature in relation to New Zeala
Page 23 and 24:
DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICSTher
Page 25 and 26:
It is also important to remember th
Page 27 and 28:
classroom. She further recommends t
Page 29 and 30:
combination. The desirable approach
Page 31 and 32:
identification and the opportunitie
Page 33 and 34:
words, teacher identification in yo
Page 35 and 36:
Tests of intelligence. Tests of int
Page 37 and 38:
2003). The bias reported in these t
Page 39 and 40:
mentioned, it must be recognised th
Page 41:
that ‘all parents think their chi
Page 46:
The adaptations made to content, pr
Page 49 and 50:
same time, relationships can be bui
Page 51 and 52:
6. The classroom has a comfortable,
Page 53 and 54:
Freeman (1998) conceives enrichment
Page 55 and 56:
egular classroom can also alleviate
Page 57 and 58:
• These learners should have oppo
Page 59 and 60:
learning there seems to be reluctan
Page 61 and 62:
Swiatek (2002) concludes that the S
Page 63 and 64:
Perhaps in the historical debate ov
Page 65 and 66:
The New Zealand Curriculum recognis
Page 67 and 68:
Stocktake Report to the Minister of
Page 69 and 70:
The model reflects many of the prin
Page 71 and 72:
• The establishment of learning g
Page 73 and 74:
challenging for them” (Fielder et
Page 75 and 76:
(1986) believe that if grouping is
Page 77 and 78:
EDUCATING GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDE
Page 79 and 80:
and exposure to higher level thinki
Page 81 and 82:
5. Ensure the student is equipped a
Page 83 and 84:
• A documented programme for an i
Page 85 and 86:
There are some suggestions that IEP
Page 87 and 88:
Potential Weaknesses• Time consum
Page 89 and 90:
always be concerned to protect stud
Page 91 and 92:
Similar findings were reported by J
Page 93 and 94:
Potential Strengths• Working in t
Page 95 and 96:
Kaplan (1999) outlines the followin
Page 97 and 98:
Potential weaknesses of learning ce
Page 99 and 100:
Developed specifically as a model f
Page 101 and 102:
earlier in this review of the liter
Page 103 and 104:
• A practical option for small or
Page 105 and 106:
programmes of this nature. Macleod
Page 107 and 108:
have significant but varying positi
Page 109 and 110:
• Missed instruction (Cox & Danie
Page 111 and 112:
describe American secondary schools
Page 113 and 114:
felt that instruction was more stud
Page 115 and 116:
Recommendations for Effective Pract
Page 117 and 118:
Outcomes for StudentsEarly entry is
Page 119 and 120:
difficulties, Cornell et al. (1991)
Page 121 and 122:
opportunities for acceleration and
Page 123 and 124:
Burns and Lewis (2000) conducted a
Page 125 and 126:
way, competitions allow students a
Page 127 and 128:
hundred and sixteen of these Olympi
Page 129 and 130:
her wings so that those special abi
Page 131 and 132:
programmes: establish a “definiti
Page 133 and 134:
determine what features are essenti
Page 135 and 136:
their responses (Harrison, 2003). O
Page 137 and 138:
ideas beyond the school curriculum,
Page 139 and 140:
• Narrow selection criteria inclu
Page 141 and 142:
Culture free and culture fair tests
Page 143 and 144:
In her examination of successful pr
Page 145 and 146:
potential (Torrance, 1984). Mentors
Page 147 and 148:
Provisions: ProblemsShortage of cul
Page 149 and 150:
content and context of learning is
Page 151 and 152:
concept/phenomenon, threat of isola
Page 153 and 154:
Similarly, Doidge (1990) recommends
Page 155 and 156:
cooperative team approach is helpfu
Page 157 and 158:
student outcomes is briefly discuss
Page 159 and 160:
a link between programme evaluation
Page 161 and 162:
• Community and parental contribu
Page 163 and 164:
Cathcart (1996) states that, “som
Page 165 and 166:
• Is passionate about discipline,
Page 167 and 168:
Whilst all of these are promising p
Page 169 and 170:
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF IDENTIFICA
Page 171 and 172:
profiles or cumulative work folders
Page 173 and 174:
QuestionnaireThis purpose of the qu
Page 175 and 176:
questionnaire the quality of these
Page 177 and 178:
• Income Support Payments Receive
Page 179 and 180:
of these schools reported one, wher
Page 181 and 182:
Table 9. Written Policies and Proce
Page 183 and 184:
We are very much in our conception
Page 185 and 186:
Table 11. School-Based Concept or D
Page 187 and 188:
Some schools recognised the potenti
Page 189 and 190:
Table 12. Formal Identification by
Page 191 and 192:
The frequencies for this section ar
Page 193 and 194:
Table 17. Identification Methods: C
Page 195 and 196:
Table 19. Identification Methods: S
Page 197 and 198:
Summary: Formal Identification of G
Page 199 and 200:
Table 24. Community-Based Provision
Page 201 and 202:
Table 25. School-based Provision by
Page 203 and 204:
Provisions: Intellectual/Academic.
Page 205 and 206:
Table 31. Provisions: Gifted and Ta
Page 207 and 208:
primary schools are making schoolwi
Page 209 and 210:
Resource provision, staffing, is a
Page 211 and 212:
Case StudiesTo add richness to this
Page 213 and 214:
7. Measures to ensure identificatio
Page 215 and 216:
Table 36. Profile of School A.Overa
Page 217 and 218:
intelligences, inquiry learning, an
Page 219 and 220:
School B’s JourneyThis full prima
Page 221 and 222:
Table 38. Profile of School C.Overa
Page 223 and 224:
included. Teachers chose which acti
Page 225 and 226: School D’s JourneyWhile it is dif
Page 227 and 228: Table 40. Profile of School E.Overa
Page 229 and 230: isks. As part of this inclusive phi
Page 231 and 232: School F’s JourneyPrior to the pr
Page 233 and 234: Table 42. Profile of School G.Overa
Page 235 and 236: School electives and the annual sch
Page 237 and 238: School H’s JourneyThe gifted and
Page 239 and 240: School I’s JourneyThe journey for
Page 241 and 242: Table 45. Profile of School J.Overa
Page 243 and 244: community who may be able to suppor
Page 245 and 246: IdentificationDuring the in-depth i
Page 247 and 248: 1. A talent detector form that asks
Page 249 and 250: The process in one school for the i
Page 251 and 252: Have an established gifted register
Page 253 and 254: Withdrawal programmes. The ‘succe
Page 255 and 256: It’s actually releasing children
Page 257 and 258: Difficulties. Providing for gifted
Page 259 and 260: Knowing that Mäori kids like team
Page 261 and 262: To counteract the previously mentio
Page 263 and 264: classroom teacher for inclusion in
Page 265 and 266: additional funds for competitions,
Page 267 and 268: classes during Enrichment. The coor
Page 269 and 270: One of the main day to day operatio
Page 271 and 272: The intermediate school teachers of
Page 273 and 274: cluster programme, as well as press
Page 275: not all students could participate,
Page 279 and 280: The rationale for professional read
Page 281 and 282: DiscussionThe purpose in this resea
Page 283 and 284: Schoolwide organisation of gifted a
Page 285 and 286: inclusive nature of giftedness and
Page 287 and 288: provisions in their procedures. Mee
Page 289 and 290: ConclusionsThis section of the rese
Page 291 and 292: eflect the core principles of gifte
Page 293 and 294: ReferencesAdams, C., & Cross, T. (1
Page 295 and 296: Betts, G. (1985). Autonomous Learne
Page 297 and 298: Callahan, C.M., Hunsaker, S.L., Ada
Page 299 and 300: Cross, T. (1994). Alternative inqui
Page 301 and 302: Feldhusen, J.F. (1997). Educating t
Page 303 and 304: Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the v
Page 305 and 306: Heller, K.A., & Schofield, N.J. (20
Page 307 and 308: Kaufmann, F.A., Harrel, G., Milam,
Page 309 and 310: Lewis, G. (2002). Alternatives to a
Page 311 and 312: McGee, C., Jones, A., Cowie, B., Hi
Page 313 and 314: Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating cul
Page 315 and 316: Plunkett, M., & Harvey, D. (1995).
Page 317 and 318: Renzulli, J.S. (1986). Systems and
Page 319 and 320: Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative le
Page 321 and 322: Slavin, R.E. (1988). Synthesis of r
Page 323 and 324: Timutimu-Thorpe, H. (1988). E awhi
Page 325 and 326: Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2000). Theory
Page 327 and 328:
APPENDIX ALiterature Review Templat
Page 329 and 330:
Section 2: THEORY-BASED REFERENCES
Page 331 and 332:
APPENDIX BSchool Questionnaire20033
Page 333 and 334:
321
Page 335 and 336:
323
Page 337 and 338:
325
Page 339 and 340:
APPENDIX CInformation Sheets andInt
Page 341 and 342:
The Extent and Nature of Identifica
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
As compensation for your school’s
Page 347 and 348:
APPENDIX DConsent Forms335
Page 349:
show all

The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?